Asymmetrical Information

In Greek restaurants where plate breaking is de rigeur my understanding is that they bring stacks of plates for a charge. I have heard that are places on the west side of Tottenham Court Road that actually do this.

Jane wrote: "There's no special magic to culture that I can see..."

Why then is almost all of the terrorism in the world today being committed by muslims? The ones committing it are not all "poor, uneducated, ghettoized people"; many are educated or from wealthy backgrounds. But the common thread, from the Phillipines to France, is that they are muslim. Are you arguing that culture makes no difference at all in determining the propensity of a people to resort to violence? What about the Spartans or other cultures with a warrior/conqueror ethic? Islam too has such an ethic - jihad.

Jane,

Re; "...and because they feel little part of the reciprocating bonds that hold us together in a web of mutual exchange..."

This is the part of the equation that interests me. Why is it that they feel little part of the reciprocating bonds? Well, a good part of it is that they are members of a religion that emphasizes exclusivity. They want to live in a diverse society, and expect that society to accept them, while they themselves do not accept others. Exclusivity breeds contempt.

Never underestimate the sheer fun had by humans who are destroying things or other people. While overseas, I was once set upon by a group of men wielding rifle butts, and kicking with heavy boots, and it was quite obvious to me that they did so mostly because they were having a good time.

No doubt many of the Poles that Will writes about cackled with glee as they slaughtered the Jewish neighbors in their village. "Civilization" is but a thin veneer over what Twain referred to as the "Goddamned human race".

I can't stand to be in like-minded groups, and being in an ethnically or ideologically homogenous crowd that is expressing it's solidarity, regarding just about anything (even most sporting events these days, given the behavior tolerated) is just about the most grotesque experience imaginable for me.

I agree a little with the idea of thrill-seeking as an underrated cause of rioting, and a little bit more with the idea that Islamist motivations haven't been shown to be a significant cause of the riots.

But I think there are significant problems using this to explain the whole phenomenon. First, the longevity of the riots: breaking stuff is fun for a few hours, but the riots have gone on for more than a week. If excitement were the primary force drawing people into riots, wouldn't you expect boredom to draw them out much faster than has been the case?

Secondly, the large number of copycat riots suggests that (at least in the rioters' eyes) there is something to be gained by rioting on the local level, without being part of the main event. That seems to argue against the "it's allowed, so do it" argument as well -- none of the other towns had reached the point of law and order breakdown that would produce the herd effects.

I think there are genuine thrill-seeking riots. Most college town riots come to mind, but those peter out in hours. The anti-WTO Battle in Seattle comes to mind, and the followup riots at WTO meeting even more so. Yet there again, the thrill-seekers made a point of showing up at the Main Event, rather than rioting wherever they happened to be.

Historians have noted that the destruction during Sherman's March was probably just due to youthful exhuberance that didn't end because the officers didn't stop it. Where looting was swiftly punished - by Lee and Grant - it was far less pervasive.
Question: Why was PRes. Bush expected to have boots on the ground within, say, 11 minutes of trouble in New Orleans, but Chirac hasn't called in the military in France for 11 days? In fact,
he just called for curfews after 12 days that he could have called immediately under a 50 year old law. I don't mind criticism of a president I didn't vote for but hypocrisy is real ugly. Vote
Libertarian even if they've no chance.

I don't recall any news report from April 1992 saying that Baptists were rioting in Los Angleles.

There is some serious conflation happening with reporting of the Paris riots. I wonder why.

Having lived in Paris for several years, I can say from experience that the city's young males of North African descent are some of the most threatening characters you are ever likely to encounter. Not all of them, mind you, but if you find yourself in the wrong neighborhood or on the wrong RER train at the wrong time, well, good luck to you. Almost every guest who visited us was the victim of some kind of crime at their hands: from cons and pickpocketing right up to being threatened with knives and beaten unconscious with brass knuckles. My brother-in-law also came to the aid of a young woman who had been gang raped in a park (not in some ghastly suburb but in the Jardin de Luxembourg of all places).

The causes of this criminality, of which the riots are only the latest example, are several. There is certainly resentment among "mainstream" French society that sometimes borders on racism, but the root of it is the experience of the kind of crime that I just described. Every French person gets touched by it sooner or later and it certainly affects their opinion of different immigrant groups. There is also some purely French xenophobia of the kind that doesn't like the fact that the country's complexion is changing, but I don't think it seriously affects the life prospects of immigrants. Most French people firmly believe in thier national ethic of libery, equality and brotherhood. They are just upset because some groups -- let's be honest, the Arabs -- aren't keeping up thier side of the bargain.

As for the rioters, they aren't controlled by some Jihadist central command, but they are reading off the same page. I wouldn't be surprised if they all watch Al Jazeera and are acting out in immitation of Palestinian rock throwers. This isn't just a French phenomenon either. Jihadi style violence is becoming fashionable among alienated young males around the world. Most wouldn't act on it if their economic prospects were better, which is the saving grace of the U.S. compared to Europe. And yeah, smashing things up is also a lot of fun.

As for the French government, I think their strategy for deling with the situation is just "wait for the weather to get cold."

Scott,

Interesting point. I'm thinking its a matter of expectations. Something along the lines of;

Baptist is to baptism as Muslim is to jihad.

"conflation"? Where? By?

I got here via Marginal Revolution and therefore saw the reference to Civilization, the game. Jane, you are DOOMED! Civ 4 just came out last week, and the next book in George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire ships today!

What conflation?

I thin I see it. News from Europe of riots by "Africans and Arabs" is interpreted here as "Muslim rioting."

That might be fair, if we can find a strong connection that religion fueled the rioting ... but if the evidence is weak, or if other social/economic factors are stronger, then the French riots might be "conflated" with a fear of Islam.

I do notice that the Moslim angle is played stronger in US press than in European press, which is presumably closer to the action.

Let's travel to France and set up a "Fight Club". It could help. Who knows?

Jane - Thanks for the link to Will's article. It was an interesting read. The conclusion is disturbing: "Why in Jedwabne did neighbors murder their neighbors? Because it was permitted. Because they could."

It's for this reason that social institutions need to be maintained. Every tear in the social fabric does not, by itself, threaten us with anarchy. However, once the fabric is in shreds, tribes and gangs will form and none of us will be safe from the anarchy that results.

Tim Allen (formerly of Home Improvement fame) once proposed a theme park for guys where the first half would be Construction World, where you'd be able to operate heavy construction equipment like a backhoe, a jackhammer, and so on.

However, the second half of the park would be "Destruction World" where you get to blow up other people's constructions using tanks, bazookas, and varios destructive tools.

I'd have season tickets.

I've often thought there would be big money for the firm that figured out how to build an adult recreation center where frustrated Americans could go to have a beer, take a sledgehammer to a used computer, and throw some glassware at the walls.

There is a licensed Class III (machinegun) dealer and shooting range near Atlanta which permits people to place objects downrange and shoot them up. I've read that on Secretary's Day, their rental HK MP5K (the submachinegun used by the bad guys in Lethal Weapon) is booked solid because it is the default firearm for destroying computers.

1) Because they're French. Labor unions frequently engage in vandalism in France to make a point.

2) They've been screwed not only by a general bias against them, but the French labor market. The French long ago prioritized helping those who already have jobs maintain their generous benefits over helping those trying to break into the labor market. This has left immigrants and their descendants on the outside looking in.

This meandering posting and the comments that follow might have a point, if it weren't for a whole lot of inconvenient facts. Facts that, it is true, are not getting much (any?) attention from the MSM. Facts that show it isn't about poverty...

* Rioters are shouting "Alluhu Akhbar", a particular battle cry with a particular meaning, that comes from a particular culture.

* Business owned by Muslims are not being burned, but others are.

* Mosques are not being attacked with Molotov cocktails, but several Jewish temples and at least two Christian churches have been. This is in keeping with 9:29 from the Koran, by the way...

* Immigrants from IndoChina, from Reunion Island, from the French Caribbean, from Africa south of the Sahara are not prominent in these riots, whereas "youth" from Algeria are quite visible. Surely if the issue were merely "racism" or "economic deprivation", the riots would look more diverse?

* The riots are not just in Paris, they are now from the English Channel to Strasbourg to the Med coastline, as the map at No Pasaran makes clear, along with several other things the MSM hasn't clearly focused upon. This map may not be up to date, either.

* The rioting is not just in France, but in Aarhus, Denmark, parts of Belgium. In Denmark a journalist interviewed some of the "brothers" who had gone out and stoned a police car; it was asserted that the event had been in the planning for three weeks...

* Journalist Amir Taheri says that the Muslims in France are not actually interested in assimilation at all; rather, they want autonomy: “Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the ‘millet’ system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.” He reports that “in parts of France, a de facto millet system is already in place.” That means that Muslim leaders control the area and French officials, including police officers, simply do not enter. Robert Spencer points out where this could lead.

And in closing, isn't it interesting that one year almost to the day after Theo van Gogh was assassinated in a ritualistic fashion for the 'crime' of insulting Islam, rioting breaks out in Moslem - controlled parts of Western Europe? Gosh, could there be some symbolism here? Or do we not want to think about that sort of thing too much, because it might lead us to recall who the original "assassins" were, where they operated, what they did, and why they did it...

The example of the Palestinians is paramount, at least partly because the "establishment" has made them into counter-culture heros instead of thieves and murderers. Riot, kill, and destroy and you get your own state and international aid.

Of course, if the French would just give up their settlements on the west bank of the Seine, creating a decent homeland for their guests with autonomy, I'm sure that this intifada would fade away...

Randy -

Amazing how racism against Muslims has become socially acceptable.

To Jane's original point, the looting and snipers in New Orleans and the LA Riots a decade or so ago are part of the same trend as the current Paris riots - poor, disenfranchised people everywhere sometimes riot. It doesn't make it right, but it is a pretty consistent trend.

Let's stop the labeling and racism.

To "American in Europe", I also lived in Paris for a while, and completely agree that there are a group of people, typically of North African decent, that I found intimidating. I now live in Cincinnati, and there are a group of African Americans downtown that I also find scary. As in the immigrant neighborhoods in France, many neighborhoods in Cincinnati are beset with drug problems, poor education quality, lack of economic activity. We had race riots here a decade or so ago. Nobody suggests they were driven by some mysterious ideology or inspired by unrest in other parts of the world. Justified or not, economics and social inequality were the drivers - sparked, if memory serves, by some police actions (as, again, in Paris)

All Arabs/Muslims are not the same. They are not all sinners, just as they are not all saints. Do you think every Columbian (or Cathloic, as that country is overwhelmingly Catholic) you meet is a drug dealer?

We should all look at ourselves and ask how we became so tolerant of guilt-by-association and racial stereotyping. I thought we had made great progress on that front - depressingly, it looks like we have just shifted focus.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one. France has allowed immigrants to come to France; they have been there for more than a generation; yet they still have virtually no economic prospects. Virtually none of my French friends consider the North Africans who are there to be really French. They are all "Arabs" despite the fact that they a) were born and raised in France and b) have never been to any Arab country. The "real" French have never welcomed the "Arabs", and the "Arabs" have not bent over backwards to try to be accepted - that is the root of the problem.

I'm reminded of the chapter "Rioting for Mainly Fun and Profit" in The Unheavenly City Revisited by Edward C. Banfield, where he talks about the many motives for rioting, and noting that, yes, fun is a motive, especially for people whose lives are filled with boredom.

ellipsis -

I don't know where to start. I am thoroughly disgusted.

First, none of your "facts" which supposedly show that this "isn't about poverty" actually do anything of the sort. Instead, your "facts" (to which no sources are actually provided, btw) merely demonstrate that the rioters are generally Muslims. Fine. Point Accepted. Are the vast majority rioting as part of a religious war, as you imply? Dunno as I haven't seen an opinion poll, but from what I have read, I doubt it.

A few quotes from today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110800287_2.html):

"France is in a social and economic crisis," said Michelle Rosso, a 43-year-old music teacher from the town of Bagnolet in the northern suburbs of Paris, where the unrest has been most intense. "It's similar to the U.S. civil rights movement in the '60s. The integration policies of this country clearly do not work."
...
"In a country that has prided itself on its egalitarian social system, Lozes said, "black people and Arab people are not really considered to be from this country. They are considered an inferior group."
...
"It's no wonder these kids are protesting when their future looks like a dead end," said Michel Narbonne, 59, who sells stamps to collectors at a Paris street market. "They are frustrated, like the majority of French people. These kids are doing what most French people have wanted to do for the past 10 years."

Thank God some people are talking sense.

Ok, on to the rioters themselves:

"We want to change the government," he said, a black baseball cap pulled low over large, chocolate-brown eyes and an ebony face. "There's no way of getting their attention. The only way to communicate is by burning."
...
"I'm a citizen of France, but I don't count," said an athletic 28-year-old who identified himself only as Abdel.
...

"We don't plan anything," he said. "We just hit whatever we find at the moment."

And this from the Washington Times (in case you were about to throw the line about the Liberal Media):

"Most of these kids are being coached by professional petty criminals and gang leaders in the suburbs," said Mr. Carne, president of Action Police CFTC.

[And, supporting Jane's original point:]

"We have found our thrills: playing with riot police in the evening," one 22-year-old told an Agence France-Presse reporter yesterday. "As long as the police come and provoke us in the evening, we'll bring out the Molotov cocktails, stones, petanque balls, planks. In the day, we sleep, go see our girlfriends, play video games," the young man continued as a half-dozen youths nodded. "And in the evening, we have a good time: At 9 p.m., we go and fight the police."

+++

My point is not that the rioters are great people. I am just fed up with the neo-racists of the world trying to pin everything on Islam.

Finally, again according to the Washington Times:

"A leading Muslim group, the Union of Islamic Organizations in France, has issued a fatwa, or order, telling Muslims not to join in the violence."

Zipcar, a car-sharing service, is celebrating its move into the San Francisco market by holding a charity fundraiser in which participants can smash up an old gas-guzzler with hammers. (There were more than a few times I wanted to do the same with my old Ford Focus.)

Rick S,

Re; "I am just fed up with the neo-racists of the world trying to pin everything on Islam.

I'm 48. What I'm tired of is Islamic radical violence. I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Randy -

Great. Don't. Just at least demonstrate that it is Islamic radical violence. Nobody has done that. Just because they are Muslims doesn't mean that it is regliously inspired or organized by nefarious forces in the Middle East.

If you refuse to do that, you're really saying is that you now have some level of hatred against 1.2 billion + people in the world (the "them" in your statement), including something like 6mm in the US. And then I just feel sorry for you and scared for the rest of us. This is how things like ethnic cleaning, concentration camps, and generations long conflict like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict start. People dehumanising others and assigning "guilt" to everyone who fits a label.

Muslims aren't perfect, but they are not evil (as a group). Most just want the same thing you and I and everyone else want.

I am sorry that after 48 years, you have not learned that racism is evil.

Damian P writes:

ellipsis -

I don't know where to start. I am thoroughly disgusted.

Me, too, but probably not for the same reasons...

First, none of your "facts" which supposedly show that this "isn't about poverty" actually do anything of the sort.

Really? Oh, dear, and I thought I'd provided some logic and a few links...but if you don't believe that "youths" have an agenda, perhaps you can tell me why they have firebombed Synogogues, isn't that something rather Nazi-like, rather than economic-protest like?

Instead, your "facts" (to which no sources are actually provided, btw) merely demonstrate that the rioters are generally Muslims. Fine. Point Accepted.

Then either you are asserting that the vast majority of poor people in France are Moslems (which is not true) or you are accepting that the vast majority of rioters are Moslems, while many other poor people are not rioting, yet asserting this is all about poverty and nothing else, which is a contradiction.

See the quandry you are in? If it's all about poverty, why are there no Indo-Chinese rioting?

Are the vast majority rioting as part of a religious war, as you imply? Dunno as I haven't seen an opinion poll, but from what I have read, I doubt it.

So what have you read? Have you read anything from any source outside of the Main Stream Media? Have you read any of the quotes from France, any of the bloggers from Europe, like "No Pasaran" that I cited earlier, or this one ? Have you read even a tiny bit of the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira?

A few quotes from today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110800287_2.html):

Wow, there's a source that's never been wrong before...

"France is in a social and economic crisis," said Michelle Rosso, a 43-year-old music teacher from the town of Bagnolet in the northern suburbs of Paris, where the unrest has been most intense. "It's similar to the U.S. civil rights movement in the '60s. The integration policies of this country clearly do not work."

Of course an integration policy that attempts to integrate people who actively resist being integrated...could have some problems.

...
"In a country that has prided itself on its egalitarian social system, Lozes said, "black people and Arab people are not really considered to be from this country. They are considered an inferior group."
...
"It's no wonder these kids are protesting when their future looks like a dead end," said Michel Narbonne, 59, who sells stamps to collectors at a Paris street market. "They are frustrated, like the majority of French people. These kids are doing what most French people have wanted to do for the past 10 years."

But where is the quote from Theodore Dalrymple, who visited some of the concrete towers that surround every major French city and wrote back in 2002 a text for City Journal that has turned out to be quite prescient and who most recently produced some observations on the mind of the suicide bomber that go quite a bit further than the usual WaPo or other Main Stream Media pap dares to even consider?

Thank God some people are talking sense.

Certainly, certainly, we wouldn't want to talk anything other than sense...but the question arises, is it really sensible, let alone accurate, to try to come up with a parallel between the 1960's in the United States, where over 50 years of "Jim Crow" laws were coming to an end on top of centuries of slavery, and 2005 France, where social policies have been in place to provide for the material needs of "guest workers" for over 30 years?

Ok, on to the rioters themselves:

"We want to change the government," he said, a black baseball cap pulled low over large, chocolate-brown eyes and an ebony face. "There's no way of getting their attention. The only way to communicate is by burning."
...
"I'm a citizen of France, but I don't count," said an athletic 28-year-old who identified himself only as Abdel.
...
"We don't plan anything," he said. "We just hit whatever we find at the moment."

Yes, yes, but what do they want to change the government in to, please? Recall that all of this started because some police went into an area that had been off limits to police for some time, which means that someone else was in charge of life in that zone...and who was that?

And the claim that there is no planning is laughable on the face of it; over 1,000 automobiles did not just catch on fire by coincidence in a 24 hour period, nor was it just a sudden impulse that led teams to firebomb cars in the heart of Paris on the Place de l'Republique, either. If gangs were setting cars on fire on DuPont Circle in Washington, DC it wouldn't be on impulse, now would it?

And this from the Washington Times (in case you were about to throw the line about the Liberal Media):

"Most of these kids are being coached by professional petty criminals and gang leaders in the suburbs," said Mr. Carne, president of Action Police CFTC.

No doubt that is true, but so what? Again, we have the spectacle of youths shouting "Alluhu Akhbar", or "Allah Is Greatest" as they engage in an attack not in Baghdad or Kabul, but in Paris, France. Now, tell me, is that a slogan specific to any particular culture, please? Or is it just something that any old poor Frenchman might shout out?

Maybe we could ask Daniel Pipes what he thinks it means, since he's been rather careful in the past not to cast doubt on motives of Muslims?

[And, supporting Jane's original point:]

"We have found our thrills: playing with riot police in the evening," one 22-year-old told an Agence France-Presse reporter yesterday. "As long as the police come and provoke us in the evening, we'll bring out the Molotov cocktails, stones, petanque balls, planks. In the day, we sleep, go see our girlfriends, play video games," the young man continued as a half-dozen youths nodded. "And in the evening, we have a good time: At 9 p.m., we go and fight the police."

A life of ease, pleasure and fighting with infidels, where the infidels themselves provide the food, drink and other toys ... gee, no one's ever thought of that before...

+++

My point is not that the rioters are great people. I am just fed up with the neo-racists of the world trying to pin everything on Islam.

I see, so for daring to tell just some of the truth about what is happening in France, I'm a racist. I'll certainly bear that in mind in the future. But please explain how being in opposition to Islamic Fascism makes me a "racist"? I guess that Chris Hitchens is a "racist" as well?

Finally, again according to the Washington Times:

"A leading Muslim group, the Union of Islamic Organizations in France, has issued a fatwa, or order, telling Muslims not to join in the violence."

Ah, yes, the "anti-riot" fatwa that nearly caused another riot...one must read these things with care, and with an informed mind (remember the Koran, Hadith and Sira?), regardless of the source.

Let's look at a key passage:
"It is formally forbidden to any Muslim seeking divine grace and satisfaction to participate in any action that blindly hits private or public property or could constitute an attack on someone's life," the UOIF fatwa said.

So is it forbidden to engage in any attack on public or private property, or merely those that blindly attack such property? Are carefully targeted attacks acceptable, for example? And shall we go into the details of the Koran on the topic of who can, and who cannot, be attacked and killed as part of a Jihad? Or perhaps that is that too much information for now...

In my previous comment I fatfingered a cut/paste and attributed to Damien P that which was written by Rick S. My apologies to both posters for my carelessness.

Oh, and by the way, the reason that there is no real integration of Moslems into the culture of France is because the Europe-Arab Dialog, now known as the Mediterranean Partnership I believe, agreed back in the 1970's not to do so. Instead, every effort would be made to keep Moslems in Europe part of their own culture. One might ask why that was done...

See Bat Y'eor's book Eurabia for all the details.

Rick S,

When I say I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, what I mean is that it is up to the Islamic community to prove that Islam is not a factor in this round of violence. I do not owe them the benefit of the doubt. They owe me an explanation.

For what its worth, I also think the Catholic church owes me an explanation for the Saint Bartholomews Day massacre, the Crusades, and the Inquisition. I think the communists owe me an explanation for the atrocities of Stalin and Pol Pot. I do not give the organizers of failed philosophies the benefit of the doubt, because the harm they do is immense.

ellipsis -

I apologize that this post might be a little hard to follow - I didn't want to embed a third post in the thread.

For the record, my position is that I don't know if these riots are religiously inspired; most of the articles that I have read have led me to think that it is not, my experience living in France leads me to think it is not, and my experience with Muslims leads me to think that it is not. I am writing these volumes because I think it is horrible the level of bigotry, collective guilt that has been expressed. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Related to some specific points you made:

1 - I never said the youths don't have an agenda. I just said they have an economic, not a religious one. I am truly sorry that a synogogue was firebombed. That is horrible. However, things get firebombed in riots. The fact that these two did get firebombed doesn't prove that it is not economic. Did the rioters specially go to a neighborhood with no rioting to attack them? Or were other things in that neighborhood attacked? Again, it is horrible, but it is not proof of a religious plot.

Incidentally, I do know that a large number of Muslims are anti-Semitic, and I do believe that is wrong. And it is certainly possible that the rioters are. However, it is also true that Arab Christians are equally anti-Semitic. You can argue that religion plays a part in current and historical anti-Semitism. But again, that doesn't mean these riots are religiosly inspired.

Also, I do believe that a large number of Jews are anti-Muslim.

2 - I have no idea of the majority of French poor are Muslim, but it is certainly the case that the unemployment rate in many of these "muslim suburbs" is well over 30%, triple the national average in France. According the the WSJ, "by one estimate, unemployment is 40% among foreign-born residents of France aged 15 to 29." And I have first hand witnessed the discrimination against these folks in France. Put everything together, and the fact that it has been going on for a long time, and you can find a plausible explanation that has nothing to do with religion, race, origin.

Additionally, Muslims make up I think quarter of the population in France, roughly 5mm people. You actually have no idea whether or not Indo-Chinese people are rioting. But I guarantee you they don't have the critcial mass to be noticed among the others.

3 - The fact that I am actually reading this blog is an indication that I have read things outside the MSM.

4 - You said: "Of course an integration policy that attempts to integrate people who actively resist being integrated...could have some problems. "

Of course, we'll never know until it is tried.

5 - Yes, I have actually read all of the Muslim religious texts, and as I think I have mentioned, have actually lived in several Muslim countries and seen it practiced. There is as much objectionable as there is any other religious text, and as much good in there as in any other religious text.

"Allahu Akbar" means God is Greatest. (Allah, btw, is simply Arabic for God; Arab Christians use the same word in their prayers). It is the beginning of every Muslim prayer. I know an elderly guy who says it every time he stands up (with considerable pain/effort).And I know atheist Arabs who say it from time to time, the same way an Atheist Anglo might say "Jesus Christ". Again, you are attempting guilt by association. Further, occasional tv clips does not make it what is said by the majority of people.

Understanding these things requires some knowledge of and experience in the culture, not just watching some tv clips and biased news articles.

6 - Yes, I believe you are a racist, at least given the comments you have made here. Being opposed to what you call "Islamic Fascism" - to which I am also opposed - does not make you a racist. Assuming every Muslim is an "Islamic Fascist" does. And you are clearly, by assuming that religion is the driver of these riots without evidence, are making that assumption. Sorry.

Christopher Hitchens is one of my favourite writers. In the things that I have read, he does draw the line between the minority and the majority, and does not assume guilt. If I am wrong, and he does, then yes, he is a racist too.

And lastly, Daniel Pipes... ah, what a man. Few people can say "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene" (National Review 11/19/90) with such flourish. Or, the choice statement " "The Palestinians are a miserable people, and they deserve to be." (said in a speech to Lewis and Clark college)

The Washington Post says that Mr. Pipes shows "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims...he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them."

So, if you don't mind, I would rather not ask Daniel Pipes who, has a strange way of being "rather careful in the past not to cast doubt on the motives of Muslims".

I sure that another part of the problem is the cult of victimhood and the welfare state. If you deliver the message often enough that people are entitled to be supported by taxes taken from others, quite a few people are inclined to believe it. And they easily come to feel slighted when the deal they are actually getting doesn't live up to the ads the politicians ran.

If you do not speak french, have never lived in france, you do not understand french society. Americans seems to think this rioting is religiously motivated. I can assure you it isnt. The violent rebel youth of the paris suburbs do not give a f*** about religion. They sell drugs and live a life of crime. Is that the lifestyle of a jihadist?

They shout allah ackbar as a rallying cry to piss off and scare the police. They love france and it's lifestyle, they just dont have an opportunity to live it. They certainly do not want to establish an islamic governement!

A clear sign of racism is when the racist cannot distinguish difference in a group. Muslim are all the same! Christians are all the same! The second statement sounds stupid to you isnt?

The violent youth of france are very different from palestinian suicide bombers. This would be obvious if you'd know about the situation or your racism didnt blind you. There is no international muslim conspiracy acting in france right now. Forget it! You are as dumb as the arab who believe in the protocol of zion.

I suggest you learn french and listen to french rap. You will quickly figure out the causes of this riot.

I want to add that I am 22 year old son of a mauritanian emigrant. I speak french and english, I dont even speak arabic. I do not believe in god. However, if I were to burn a car you would probably brand me as a muslim. I've lived in Paris. I currently live in montreal, QC. I believe I have a future here. I dont believe I would have one in france.

/Post was directed to those who think it's a muslim riot

RickS wrote:
ellipsis -
I apologize that this post might be a little hard to follow - I didn't want to embed a third post in the thread.

Oh, I don't think it will be too hard to follow...

For the record, my position is that I don't know if these riots are religiously inspired; most of the articles that I have read have led me to think that it is not, my experience living in France leads me to think it is not, and my experience with Muslims leads me to think that it is not.

Please make up your mind. Are these riots part of the Jihad, or not?

Now, looking back up the thread, I see that I wrote carelessly, and in haste, to respond to claims by Jane and others that rioting & burning other people's property is "fun". I will grant that there are social and economic factors in these riots, based upon what I know about the French concrete-towers-full-of-welfare-recipients, but it seemed, and still seems, that there obviously is a major element of the Jihad at work as well. Anyone who bothered to read Theodore Dalrymple's 2002 "City Journal" article would come away with at least some knowledge of both the social/economic factors AND the Jihad factors...

I am writing these volumes because I think it is horrible the level of bigotry, collective guilt that has been expressed. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"?

If a bunch of Nazis were desecrating Jewish cemetaries, firebombing Synogogues and assaulting Jewish school children in broad daylight, would you want me to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they were "innocent until proven guilty" of hating Jews, and surely motivated only by economic factors, too?
You may or may not know this, but all the above has been going on in France for some years now, and in the vast majority of cases all the vandals/arsonists/attackers have come from one particular group of people, and no, they don't walk around going "Sieg Heil", either...not lately, anyway...

Related to some specific points you made:

1 - I never said the youths don't have an agenda. I just said they have an economic, not a religious one.

Yes, I'm aware of that. The evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

I am truly sorry that a synogogue was firebombed. That is horrible.

Well, that's a surprise for two reasons: first, you earlier claimed that I had no evidence to back this up. Now you seem to agree that it did happen, that's interesting. Are you willing to agree that I did and do have evidence backing up my claims? But more generally, why do you find it horrible that someone is willing to carry out on the retail level what Ahmdinjad ...that great leader of the Religion of Peace...wants to do on the wholesale level?

However, things get firebombed in riots. The fact that these two did get firebombed doesn't prove that it is not economic. Did the rioters specially go to a neighborhood with no rioting to attack them? Or were other things in that neighborhood attacked? Again, it is horrible, but it is not proof of a religious plot.

Well, gee, please explain to me why no mosques have been firebombed, then. I have a report of two Christian churches also attacked by arsonists, but as they are unconfirmed, I'll sit on them for a while. But isn't it odd that when "things" are getting firebombed, Jewish "things" are getting hit but Moslem "things" are not, and yet you claim this is purely economic? Can you explain further?

Incidentally, I do know that a large number of Muslims are anti-Semitic, and I do believe that is wrong.

Hating Jews seems to be required of them by their religion in multiple parts of the Koran, are you suggesting that there's something wrong with that?

And it is certainly possible that the rioters are. However, it is also true that Arab Christians are equally anti-Semitic. You can argue that religion plays a part in current and historical anti-Semitism. But again, that doesn't mean these riots are religiosly inspired.

Your pals the Saudi's have been shipping out "educational" materials around the world to schools and mosques that teach, among other things, that "on the last day, even the rocks and trees will cry out, 'O Moslem! There is a Jew behind me! Come and kill him!'". Given this kind of material being taught in madrassas and other Moslem institutions, you don't see any link between such lessons, and the firebombing of Synagogues?

Also, I do believe that a large number of Jews are anti-Muslim.

So what? I can't imagine why that might be, in view of the wonderful treatment Jewish people have received from Muslims, especially in the last 50-odd years or so...but even if every Jewish person on Earth was "anti-Muslim", in what way does that make firebombing Synagogues acceptable to you?

2 - I have no idea of the majority of French poor are Muslim, but it is certainly the case that the unemployment rate in many of these "muslim suburbs" is well over 30%, triple the national average in France. According the the WSJ, "by one estimate, unemployment is 40% among foreign-born residents of France aged 15 to 29."

I've seen similar numbers, and as noted earlier in this text I will agree that at least some of this riot is indeed inspired in part by the French welfare state. But not all, not by a long shot.

And I have first hand witnessed the discrimination against these folks in France. Put everything together, and the fact that it has been going on for a long time, and you can find a plausible explanation that has nothing to do with religion, race, origin.

Oh, I'm sure that you can find a plausible explanation for just about any action taken by rioters...well, by some rioters, anyway...

Additionally, Muslims make up I think quarter of the population in France, roughly 5mm people.

That number looks a bit high, I suspect it is closer to 10% Moslem.

You actually have no idea whether or not Indo-Chinese people are rioting.

I cannot seem to find any images of them, however, while I can find images of other people rioting...

But I guarantee you they don't have the critcial mass to be noticed among the others.

Oh, come on, if a Vietnamese or Chinese gang torched some cars anywhere near a press photographer, you don't think there'd be images of it available?

3 - The fact that I am actually reading this blog is an indication that I have read things outside the MSM.

Only barely, the fact that all of your citations come from the Washington Post tells me plenty...

4 - You said: "Of course an integration policy that attempts to integrate people who actively resist being integrated...could have some problems. "

Of course, we'll never know until it is tried.

Of course, given the fact that integration into the French society was explicitly prohibited by the Euro-Arab Dialog in 1974, as documented heavily by Bat Y'eor in "Eurabia", it seems to me that there is a bit more to this part of the problem than you have been willing to discuss so far...

5 - Yes, I have actually read all of the Muslim religious texts, and as I think I have mentioned, have actually lived in several Muslim countries and seen it practiced. There is as much objectionable as there is any other religious text, and as much good in there as in any other religious text.

Well, I must say that I'm impressed by this. Since you've read all the ahadith, would you care to recommend a commentator to me? And since you read all the sira, would you care to share with us what parts you find worthy of emulation?

"Allahu Akbar" means God is Greatest. (Allah, btw, is simply Arabic for God; Arab Christians use the same word in their prayers). It is the beginning of every Muslim prayer. I know an elderly guy who says it every time he stands up (with considerable pain/effort).

But of course, it is much more than that, as Mohammed Atta's diary reminds us, it is a cry that is to be given as part of an attack in order to create fear within the kufr...as the last thirteen centuries of history teach quite clearly.

And I know atheist Arabs who say it from time to time, the same way an Atheist Anglo might say "Jesus Christ".

Oh, come on now. Assume some hypothetical riot by athiests; are they really going to cry out "Jesus Christ!" as they set cars on fire, hurl firebombs at buildings, attack police, and so forth? Excuse me, but I don't think so. This is a battle cry, pure and simple, and one that has been employed for over a thousand years. Please don't insult my intelligence with this nonsensical attempt at taqqiya. (No, I am not expecting any riots by atheists, by the way.)

Again, you are attempting guilt by association.

I am pointing out a fact. Earlier I stated that some "youths" were crying "Alluhu Akhbar" and you accused me of having no facts to back it up. Now I provide facts, and you decide to accuse me of something else; no matter what evidence I produce, you can't admit that my claim is true, you just change the subject. I have seen this before, by the way...

Further, occasional tv clips does not make it what is said by the majority of people.

And where did I say that it was? I stated a fact: some "youths" cried this out. You demanded evidence, I provided it, and now you falsely accuse me of something I didn't write.

Understanding these things requires some knowledge of and experience in the culture, not just watching some tv clips and biased news articles.

Speaking plainly about these things requires some knowledge, yes, but it also requires one not to hide the facts, or distort them.

6 - Yes, I believe you are a racist, at least given the comments you have made here.

Let us explore this a bit. At the very simplest level, racism is a doctrine that holds one race of people to be worse than another race of people. Now it is generally accepted that there are three races of humans: Caucasian, Negro, Oriental. I personally only recognize one race, "human", but that's just my personal view. Thus it is "racist" to hold that all people who are Oriental, or Negro, or Caucasian are somehow inferior, bad, etc.

I despise and loath the Islamic Fascists who murdered children in a school in Beslan who, shouting "Alluhu Akhbar" shot children in the back. So there's the Caucasian case. Feel free to declare me a 'racist' because I find Caucasians who kill school children for their religion to be despicable...

I also despise and loath the Islamic Fascists in Africa who demand Sharia in Nigeria, sell humans into slavery in Mauritania and Sudan, and who seem to be busy suppressing attempts at democratic reform in Zanzibar So there's the Negro case; feel free to call me a "racist" because I burn with an anger towards those that buy and sell slaves, with a passion that is certainly beyond your understanding.

Words literally fail me in just one case of Asian Jihad, where we see Sura 8:12 of the Koran being obeyed to the letter. Feel free to call me a racist for intensely wishing to be able to personally deal with the Oriental Jihadis who committed this crime...and please, defend this one, I really, really want you to try...

So here I am, despising people from the Caucasian, Negro and Oriental races becaue of the "content of their character" (or lack thereof) and totally independent of the "color of their skin"; because of what they do, not what they look like.

And you find this to be racism...

Being opposed to what you call "Islamic Fascism" - to whisch I am also opposed - does not make you a racist.

Uh huh. That doesn't seem to match up with other things you have written.

Assuming every Muslim is an "Islamic Fascist" does. And you are clearly, by assuming that religion is the driver of these riots without evidence, are making that assumption.

As I've made clear above, I don't make that assumption. But your smear is noted.

Christopher Hitchens is one of my favourite writers. In the things that I have read, he does draw the line between the minority and the majority, and does not assume guilt. If I am wrong, and he does, then yes, he is a racist too.

I see, so standing up to the Jihad, that's racism...But, of course, the Muslims in Khartoum who sell black Christians and Animists like animals, often to your Saudi pals...they're not racist, none of 'em, no, no, no...

And lastly, Daniel Pipes... ah, what a man. Few people can say "Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene" (National Review 11/19/90) with such flourish. Or, the choice statement " "The Palestinians are a miserable people, and they deserve to be." (said in a speech to Lewis and Clark college)

The Washington Post says that Mr. Pipes shows "a disturbing hostility to contemporary Muslims...he professes respect for Muslims but is frequently contemptuous of them."

So, if you don't mind, I would rather not ask Daniel Pipes who, has a strange way of being "rather careful in the past not to cast doubt on the motives of Muslims".

And of course, in addition to not being as politically correct as he should be, Pipes is a Jew...and isn't that really all that your Moslem friends need to say, Rick?

Why are you discussing the French riots in the context of Islam and terrorism? It has nothing to do with either - I guess it is just to difficult for the mass of Americana to take a journey back into their own history of race riots - is there not the slightest bit of recognition?

Ellipsis -

You're right, I was wrong. I do apoligize. You are not a racist. You are, instead, an equal opportunity bigot - in the same league as the scum in the KKK who hate Jews (not the racists in the KKK who hate blacks) and the Arabs I denounced who are Anti-Semitic.

I guess the only way you know to fight bigotry is to become one yourself.

But at least you can look yourself in the mirror every morning happy in the knowledge that you are not a racist, just a bigot.

Additionally, the fact that you have responded to my comment with a polemic against the evils of Islam, rather than any additional proof that the riots are religiously inspired, shows the idiocy of your argument and the nature of your bigotry.

I am not interested in debating the Quran or the Bible or any other religion with you. That wasn't why I started writing these comments. I only hope the readers of the comments, if there are any left, are taking note of the bigotry you've shown.

However, I do recommend Bukhari and Muslim as two good sources of hadith. And I recommend the following one to you, as you could probably do with it: "A strong man is not someone who knocks other people out in a fight. A strong man is someone who can control himself when he is angry" - as told to Bukhari by Abu Humairah.

Lastly, nobody has actually mentioned that Daniel Pipes is a Jew. But thanks for bringing it to my attention. Not sure why it is relevant or matters - he still said what I said he said, and I am certainly not here to tar everyone of the Jewish faith because of what one person says.

BTW, I love it how being a bigot is "not being as politically correct as he should be". No, he just hates brown people, thinks they are disgusting, and thinks a whole group of people "deserve to be" a miserable people. The fact that you defend those statements just re-emphasizes my point about your own bigotry.
+++

To the other folks who wrote in the comments saying this has nothing to do with either Islam or terrorism, my point exactly.

All this "explanation" of the riots is silly in that people have a wide range of motivators for most actions. I'm sure Islam plays a role in the riots for some rioters, but there are other issues (French racism, high youth unemployment, etc.) that are also motivators. We have seen plenty of non-Muslim race riots (such as Spanish natives attacking Muslims, and American Christian Black riots, etc.), so clearly Islam holds no special uniqueness to rioting.

The question is "what incentives can help to keep such riots from happening?" Because people respond to incentives.

In France, may I suggest that if labor laws were relaxed, fewer youth of all kinds (including Muslim ones) would be unemployed and would generally be more invested in living a non-criminal life and supporting the economy and community.

Lest we think this is only a French issue, the US faces rising black youth unemployment, at over 26% now. This is despite decreasing levels of general employment. The recent riots in Toledo show that US labor policy (potentially including the minimum wage policy), perhaps combined with US education policy and US drug war policy, is helping to maintain a high black youth unemployment rate in the US.

Germany, interestingly enough, has lower youth unemployment than most OECD countries, even lower than its general unemployment rate. This is probably due to the apprenticeship educational system.

Good sense from Mr Econotrarian who provides a good antidote to the single motive explainations. French children of immigrants are neither automatons who have no choice but to respond to lack of opportunity with violence, nor automatons who, as Muslims (if only nominally so in many cases), must engage in jihad. It certainly does sound like the French have not done a very good job accepting the variations on the theme of Frenchness that inevitably comes with immigration. It also sounds like the rioting youth have not found an especially constructive response to their situation. We in the US have not solved our problems with minorities as Mr. E's statistics show. Who would be surprised to see a repeat of the LA riots? This is no time to be bashing the French or pointing to yet another instance of the great monolithic Muslim conspiracy. It is a sad situation they are faced with. I wish them luck sorting it out. Most western countries face some variation on this theme and there is little to be gained by smirking when our friendly rivals take their turn with race riots.

Randy S wrote:
Ellipsis

You're right, I was wrong. I do apoligize. You are not a racist. You are, instead, an equal opportunity bigot - in the same league as the scum in the KKK who hate Jews (not the racists in the KKK who hate blacks) and the Arabs I denounced who are Anti-Semitic.

Well, there you go again. Let's look at the latest smear from Randy S. in terms of facts, beginning with a definition.
Bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

In order for this latest smear to fit, you have to show how I'm intolerant of people that aren't of my group, religion, race or politics. Show where I've condemned all Moslems, for example, because of the actions of the Jihadis. You can't, because I don't do that. For a start, I expressed how despicable the Beslan Jihadis were, but in no way did I even remotely connect all the Chechen people with that crime. The same is true for every other example or comment that I have made. So once again your smear is baseless, without any fact to support it, and indeed in contradiction with observed reality, as any reader can plainly see.

Now, I've put up multiple links to facts on this site, and provided other facts in text, and I'm wondering if you ever will bother to deal with them. For example, will you explain how it is that synagogues have been firebombed in France, but mosques have not? Well, we'll see...but back to dealing with the latest baseless smear...

Can you show how I fit the above definition, because I abhor slavery and slavers, despise child-killers, am filled with anger at those who decapitate schoolgirls? No, you can't. You could not produce any evidence to support your "racism" smear, and I produced facts contradicting that false charge, and just now you changed to a different false charge. Careful readers should easily note that in both cases, you did not provide any facts to support your attack upon me, you just hurled a smear. Furthermore, when faced with facts that support my claim that the Jihad is a factor in these riots, you ignored them.

I guess the only way you know to fight bigotry is to become one yourself.

My suggestion to you is simple: quit guessing, quit smearing, and stick to facts.

Speaking of bigots, though, let me show you and any readers what some real bigots look like: the kind that attack children and burn houses of worship. It's from the BBC, so you can't claim that it isn't accurate...nor can you ignore the implications of the facts presented, and what it says about the people who engage in such foul actions.

But of course, they are just following the words of Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, top-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world who referred to Jews this way: "The enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs."

That's real bigotry, pure hatred of people based solely upon their religion. Can you show where I have done that? No, you cannot. Do you wish to deny that this bigotry, which has been manifesting in physical violence for years in France, which is strongly encouraged by the Jihadi version of Islam, has nothing at all to do with the firebombing of Synagogues in the course of the recent, and apparently ongoing, riots?

But at least you can look yourself in the mirror every morning happy in the knowledge that you are not a racist, just a bigot.

This charge isn't supported with facts, therefore it is merely another smear. Why am I being smeared? Because I expressed the opinion, based upon facts, that there is a Jihadi component to the riots in France. Why is it so important to Randy S. that I be smeared, rather than debated logically? I do not know.
But to return to the smear, can you show where expressing my opinion makes me intolerant of all Moslems? No, but that doesn't stop you from smearing me. Can you show where expressing that opinion makes me intolerant of all immigrants to France? No, but that doesn't stop you from smearing me. Do I fit the definition of "Bigot"? No, I do not, yet you hurl the term at me anyway.

Namecalling is not debate. It is not logic. It is not reason. Again I suggest that you stop it, and respond with logic and facts next time.

Additionally, the fact that you have responded to my comment with a polemic against the evils of Islam, rather than any additional proof that the riots are religiously inspired, shows the idiocy of your argument and the nature of your bigotry.

Oh, what nonsense. I have provided evidence of Jihadi connection in this riot. In response to the false accusation of "racism" I explored what that means, and just how wrong you are. I also asked you to explain a few things, and so far you have avoided unpleasant facts, either by bringing up irrelevencies or by namecalling.

Now I will try yet again to debate you with facts:
Do you deny that the Saudi government has been sending blatantly hate-filled materials to madrassas and mosques around the world? Need I point out to a regular reader of the Washington Post this fact? Given this fact, and the fact that the Saudi government has been very active in funding the construction of mosques in France and striving to place their trained imams in those mosques, how can you state flatly that there is no possibility of any connection between these riots and the Jihad?

I shall add more facts. Here is an article in the Washington Post from a couple of weeks back in which quite a bit of concern was expressed about French citizens going to training camps in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan...to learn, what? And to return to France to do, what? Are you going to assert that the persons who have gone to known terrorist training camps, and returned to France, are in no way, shape or form involved in the rioting?

Consider this bit of blogging from France? The site loads up very, very slowly, so here is an excerpt:

«The “Sultan” is a kind of young the Goebbels who prevails on Mejliss (a message board), known for his lies. He’s a young revolutionary islamist who is somewhere between typical and extreme and a Parisian anarchists. His dream?: the revolution to destroy democracy, and to establish on the ruins of the west a totalitarian Islamic regime.

Is he typical of all Muslims in France? There is no logical evidence of that. Is he typical of Muslims on the planet? Of course not. Is he involved in both the Jihad and the riots? Clearly so, to some degree, based upon his own words. Is this further evidence of the Jihad as a factor in the riots? Yes, it is. Again I have posted facts supporting my observation that there is a Jihad component to these riots in France. Will you finally respond to these facts?

As an aside, I note that you did not deal with the fact that some Moslems willingly joined the SS in WW II; the connection between the Nazi regime and some Moslem leaders, such as the Grand Mufti of Damascus circa 1937, has not been explored nearly enough in recent years. I submit that this would explain some aspects of the hateful Ba'ath party just for a start. (I have taken the effort to make sure you cannot miss the word some, in order to forstall yet another baseless smear...)

I am not interested in debating the Quran or the Bible or any other religion with you. That wasn't why I started writing these comments.

From your first posting you engaged in name calling. You falsely accused me of racism and of having no facts to back up my statements. When I produced facts that did support my claims, rather than admit that maybe there was something to my points, you changed the subject, accused me of writing things that I never wrote, and generally avoided any serious discussion. When I demolished your false accusation of racism, you merely changed to another smear of bigotry. Nowhere did you debate the facts I have posted, prefering instead to deny, dissemble and smear.

Not only do you not want to debate the Koran, it is becoming increasingly apparent that you don't want to debate anything here.

I only hope the readers of the comments, if there are any left, are taking note of the bigotry you've shown.

Since I have shown no such thing, there's nothing to note except facts, which I have provided again and again...and, of course, your ongoing smears and evasions in response to these facts. Readers should indeed take note of this exchange, for it displays your increasingly dishonest "debate" tactics.

However, I do recommend Bukhari and Muslim as two good sources of hadith.

Noted. Those are indeed two of the standard, widely accepted commentators on ahadith. Readers should note that "Muslim" in this case is the name of a particular individual person. Now, again I ask you to tell us all what parts of the Sira you find worthy of emulation, if you would be so kind.

And I recommend the following one to you, as you could probably do with it: "A strong man is not someone who knocks other people out in a fight. A strong man is someone who can control himself when he is angry" - as told to Bukhari by Abu Humairah.

Given the increasingly strident tone of your name calling, this is an ironic quote for you to produce. Maybe you should fly over to France and read it to the rioters as well?

Lastly, nobody has actually mentioned that Daniel Pipes is a Jew. But thanks for bringing it to my attention. Not sure why it is relevant or matters - he still said what I said he said, and I am certainly not here to tar everyone of the Jewish faith because of what one person says.

You are missing the point, or perhaps evading it. When a person criticizes any action remotely involving Islam, it is not at all unusual for that person to be accused of being "A Jew". I've had that "accusation" leveled against me; for the record, it does not trouble me in the slightest to be labeled as Jewish. It's intended to be an overpowering and debate-ending accusation, I suppose, that renders all further comment moot. But of course, that would only work in an audience of bigots who already hate Jewish people. The fact that so many defenders of Islam assume up front that everyone hates Jews is very, very telling.

As to whether Pipes really is Jewish or not, I leave that to you and your friends to discuss...

BTW, I love it how being a bigot is "not being as politically correct as he should be". No, he just hates brown people, thinks they are disgusting, and thinks a whole group of people "deserve to be" a miserable people.

Say, you didn't take those comments just a teeny, tiny bit out of context, did you?

The fact that you defend those statements just re-emphasizes my point about your own bigotry.

Let's see now, because I cited Pipes, and you claim he's a bigot, this "proves" in your mind my status as a bigot. How ironic that you falsely accused me of "guilt by association" earlier, and now have actually done that very thing yourself...

To the other folks who wrote in the comments saying this has nothing to do with either Islam or terrorism, my point exactly.

I guess if the other folks wrote in and said that 2+2=5, you'd thank them for that, too? Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, not a proof. Make a note of that; even if you and all your friends agree that organized teams of Moslems attacking Jewish houses of worship and cemeteries has nothing to do with either anti-Jewish hatred or the Jihad, that doesn't make this claim true.

But other readers should note well that you have consistently evaded facts that are not convenient to you, and resorted to smears instead of honest debate. Other readers might want to wonder why you can't just deal with reality...

Mr. Econotarian wrote:

All this "explanation" of the riots is silly in that people have a wide range of motivators for most actions. I'm sure Islam plays a role in the riots for some rioters, but there are other issues (French racism, high youth unemployment, etc.) that are also motivators. We have seen plenty of non-Muslim race riots (such as Spanish natives attacking Muslims, and American Christian Black riots, etc.), so clearly Islam holds no special uniqueness to rioting.

Agreed. There is no group of humans that is immune to rioting; some may be more resistent to it, but none are immune, it is a flaw of humanity. Having said that, the Jihadi/Wahhabi/Salafi version of Islam is known to use rioting for its own purposes...

The question is "what incentives can help to keep such riots from happening?" Because people respond to incentives.

This is overbroad. Many people respond to incentives; perhaps all people will respond to some. Some people will respond to any incentive, others will respond to very few. It is dangerous to assume that all humans are purely economic entities, although it is common in some circles (such as libertarianism).

In France, may I suggest that if labor laws were relaxed, fewer youth of all kinds (including Muslim ones) would be unemployed and would generally be more invested in living a non-criminal life and supporting the economy and community.

This is an obvious suggestion, and one that runs smack into about 50 or more years of French economic policy. Government after government has chosen to protect people-with-jobs at the expense of others. The effects are obvious. So far, the Chirac government seems determined to offer slightly higher welfare payments, a few more amenities, and possibly some form of affirmative action. As the cliche has it, this is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; it won't address the fundamental problems of French bigotry, disastrous city planning (again I urge reading the Dalrymple article, and add to it this one from "National Review Online") or the ugly culture of the high-rise-warehouses. Nor will it address the very real issue of those who simply refuse to learn certain things, families that choose to keep daughters home from school, and other cultural issues.

It is a fact that if some young person applies for a job in a French city and the employer sees the address is in one of the "suburbs", the chances of getting hired range from slim to none. It is, however, also a fact that many residents of the "suburbs" have a poor command of the French language in spoken form, a worse command of the written form, and thus are essentially not really employable.

It is also a fact that many Poles are currently working in France, apparently many "off the books" in the illegal market. I doubt any of them were rioting...and I find myself wondering just where they live.

Lest we think this is only a French issue, the US faces rising black youth unemployment, at over 26% now. This is despite decreasing levels of general employment. The recent riots in Toledo show that US labor policy (potentially including the minimum wage policy), perhaps combined with US education policy and US drug war policy, is helping to maintain a high black youth unemployment rate in the US.

Some of the same arguments apply here; employers who don't want to hire black people from certain parts of town, applicants who can't really do anything all that useful for an employer, and so forth. And yes, this situation could well apply here; I find myself wondering if Jamaat al Fuqra is gaining members because of these conditions?

Germany, interestingly enough, has lower youth unemployment than most OECD countries, even lower than its general unemployment rate. This is probably due to the apprenticeship educational system.

The Germans may have different ways of protecting those with jobs than the French do, but I question if their youth unemployment is really all that different, given the current total unemployment rate of over 10%. German "guest workers" mainly come from Turkey, and thus from a somewhat different culture than Algerians, this is likely a factor as well.

owukori wrote:

Why are you discussing the French riots in the context of Islam and terrorism? It has nothing to do with either -

With all due respect, this isn't the case. Some of the same organizations that massacred entire families, even whole villages, in Algeria only a few years ago such as the "Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat" (GSPC in French) are known to have people in place in parts of France. Such groups seek to exploit the legitimate complaints of people for their own political ends; GSPC is known to desire that Sharia law be the only law, for example. You are a Nigerian, yes? Some parts of Nigeria are currently facing the implementation of Sharia law, aren't they? Do you think Sharia would be good for women, just for a start?

I guess it is just to difficult for the mass of Americana to take a journey back into their own history of race riots - is there not the slightest bit of recognition?

It is not at all difficult to recall events that I saw personally in one form or another. But I am certain that it is no longer 1964, and the conditions that existed in that part of time don't hold true in the world of France in 2005.

Why do people write really stupid things?

Is it because they are an ignorant, unthinking repository of ideology, seething stupidity, ever threatening to bubble over onto ordinary discoures? Is it because fundamentalists of any stripe are so damn mean?

Let me suggest another possibility: People write truly ignorant things because pisssing off the other side is fun!

Anyone who has ever tweaked a member of the opposing politcal thought, created straw men and then blew them up knows this. Seeing logical arguments fall, watching inmtelligent thought disintegrate, lights up some primitive reptilian part of our brain with searing glee.

What color are the people that are rioting in france? Are they white or are they black, brown, yellow or red. I'll bet they are not white. It is the same ole 90/10 rule. 90% of whites are good and 10% are bad and with all the other color it is 90% are bad and 10% are good.

Comments are Closed.